.................................................. ......................
SUSTAINABLE ENERGY IN MOTION BIKE TOUR - www.portlandpeace.org
.................................................. ......................
Bike hundreds of miles. Meet incredible people. Participate in
amazing service projects. Stay on organic farms and work to promote
sustainable food growth practices. Study and work with Native American
communities. Live with the land and camp under the stars.
Change your world, one mile at a time.
.................................................. ......................
web: www.portlandpeace.org phone: 503-239-8426
.................................................. ......................
WE ARE GIVING ONE OF OUR TOURS AWAY -- VISIT OUR WEBSITE TO WIN!
.................................................. ......................

This summer, you can take an extraordinary journey. Tune up your bike,
pack your bags, and join fellow riders from all over the world for an
incredible excursion across Oregon, utilizing the most sustainable
method of transportation available: your own bike.

* Study and apply the philosophies of permaculture, alternative
building, appropriate technology and sustainable energy.

* Spend time with Native American communities, work with salmon
restoration and indigenous building practices.

* Gain a deeper understanding of how organic food is grown, and
distributed.

* Explore some of the most beautiful places in Oregon while learning
about natural history, deep ecology, and environmental ethics.

* Observe local economics projects and grassroots democracy struggles
in places through which you travel.

* Participate in a traveling community of cyclists coming from all
over North America with a variety of backgrounds but with a shared
longing for a better world.

* Discover consensus decision-making and use it to make collective
decisions within your community.

* Learn about nutrition, health and fitness through long-distance
cycling.

Visit our website for more information and to enter to win one of our
one-week tours! www.portlandpeace.org / 503-239-8426

.................................................. ......................
web: www.portlandpeace.org phone: 503-239-8426
.................................................. ......................
WE ARE GIVING ONE OF OUR TOURS AWAY -- VISIT OUR WEBSITE TO WIN!
.................................................. ......................

wrote:
<...>
> This summer, you can take an extraordinary journey.

I read through your website. I'm curious why you would restrict the
dietary choices of those traveling with you, especially if they don't
feel compelled to "act in solidarity" with the poor while you charge
them about $100 a day. I also assume these are the same poor who won't
be able to spend a couple weeks pedalling around Oregon in the summer
and gazing at their navels while providing labor on organic farms or
visiting this so-called "visionary community school" because of your
tour prices. Does your respect for "diversity" include respecting those
who choose to eat something you don't?

What about meals & camping / housing fees?

We provide three healthy, nutritious meals daily that
are mostly organic, locally sourced, and vegan. We also
cover the costs of camping or other accommodations.

I understand organic and locally-sourced food. But why vegan?

Several reasons. All else being equal, a vegan diet is
more sustainable than a non-vegan diet: the amount of
food required to feed animals to obtain the same
quantity of food in meat, dairy, or egg form is far
greater than were that same amount of food consumed
directly by humans. In other words, it might require 10
lbs of grain to produce three lbs of food in the form of
egg, dairy, or meat. In its vegan form, more food (10
lbs) is available for consumption, reducing the
ecological footprint.

In line with one of our ten values (link), we interpret
.ecological wisdom. as inflicting minimal damage on
living beings. Non-violence is another value towards
which we strive, interpreted here as minimal violence
against other living beings.

Meat is a luxury for many of the poor of the world, for
whom basic plant foods provide the primary sustenance.
In recognition of this imbalance, we act in solidarity
with those individuals in our dietary choices.

Veganism is, for most Americans, a deviation from the
normal diet. Since this trip is largely about exposure
to alternatives, providing all-vegan meals accomplishes
this for many participants.

The information for veganism you've given is inaccurate. Hunting and
fishing are sustainable, and so are certain forms of livestock
production. Cattle don't have to be fed grains. And monoculture farming
can be environmentally harmful. You're not being very open-minded in
outlining the choices.

Forcing a vegan diet on your tourists also seems at odds with your
itinerary. You're going to visit dairy farms and fisheries. Would you
object if the group, acting in consensus, overruled your tour leader and
decided to have some meat or cheese? Do you object to that kind of
"grassroots democracy"?

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:

> The information for veganism you've given is inaccurate. Hunting and
> fishing are sustainable,

Except for overfishing and endangered species. Populations of salmon, tuna,
mackerel, haddock, cod, crabs, shrimp, hake, sharks redfish, halibut, and
lobsters are depleted to dangerous levels in some places. Government
regulations have forced fishermen to fish different waters, limit their
catches, or stop fishing altogether. Fishing also disrupts the ocean floor
and the habitat it provides for thousands of other species of fish,
reptiles, mammals, crustaceans, and coral. The disruption of the entire food
chain can be far-reaching.

> and so are certain forms of livestock production. Cattle don't have to be
> fed grains.

But the vast majority of cattle ARE fed grain. Making a case on what could
be is a weak argument.

> And monoculture farming can be environmentally harmful.

There's no "can be" about it. Monoculture IS environmentally harmful. It
fragments habitat and greatly diminishes biodiversity.

C. James Strutz wrote:
>>The information for veganism you've given is inaccurate. Hunting and
>>fishing are sustainable,
>
> Except for overfishing and endangered species.

The latter are (or can be) protected by law. The former applies to
certain forms of commercial fishing. It does NOT apply to other forms
including recreational angling (large-mouth bass aren't headed for
extinction), line-caught fishing (as opposed to netting), and fish farming.

> Fishing also disrupts the ocean floor
> and the habitat it provides for thousands of other species of fish,
> reptiles, mammals, crustaceans, and coral.

Recreational angling and line-catching do not disrupt the ocean floor.
Many specialty supermarkets carry fresh line-caught fish, and many more
carry canned line-caught fish.

>>and so are certain forms of livestock production. Cattle don't have to be
>>fed grains.
>
> But the vast majority of cattle ARE fed grain.

Urge consumers, then, to buy grass-fed instead.

> Making a case on what could
> be is a weak argument.

Grass-fed operations aren't "what could be," they exist. Such product is
already available in supermarkets, direct from farms, and via the
internet. This is not like Dreck's sloppy bullshit about "animals don't
have to die" in farming -- which, on a commercial scale, is pipedream.

>>And monoculture farming can be environmentally harmful.
>
> There's no "can be" about it. Monoculture IS environmentally harmful. It
> fragments habitat and greatly diminishes biodiversity.

Yet this cycling tour will include foods which have been grown on
monoculture farms -- grains in particular.

Now for the important issue. Would you pay $100 a day to take a
leisurely ride through some of Oregon's most scenic stretches for two
weeks and during the same time suggest you have some kind "solidarity"
with the poor simply because you've at least temporarily adopted "veganism"?

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
>>>The information for veganism you've given is inaccurate. Hunting and
>>>fishing are sustainable,
>>
>> Except for overfishing and endangered species.
>
> The latter are (or can be) protected by law.

The former is also regulated by law.

> The former applies to certain forms of commercial fishing. It does NOT
> apply to other forms including recreational angling (large-mouth bass
> aren't headed for extinction), line-caught fishing (as opposed to
> netting), and fish farming.

Well, by your own argument in another thread, only large scale production
can accomodate viable commercial markets. We aren't talking about individual
consumption.

>> Fishing also disrupts the ocean floor and the habitat it provides for
>> thousands of other species of fish, reptiles, mammals, crustaceans, and
>> coral.
>
> Recreational angling and line-catching do not disrupt the ocean floor.
> Many specialty supermarkets carry fresh line-caught fish, and many more
> carry canned line-caught fish.

I've never heard of any supermarket, specialty or other, that carry any
line-caught fish.

>>>and so are certain forms of livestock production. Cattle don't have to be
>>>fed grains.
>>
>> But the vast majority of cattle ARE fed grain.
>
> Urge consumers, then, to buy grass-fed instead.

The average consumer won't buy grass-fed until the cost is comparable.
Cattle are fed grain (and other stuff) so they can be brought to market
larger and faster, making them less expensive to consumers. Besides, I have
no vested interest to urge consumers to support any kind of beef products.
Sounds more like your thing...

>> Making a case on what could be is a weak argument.
>
> Grass-fed operations aren't "what could be," they exist. Such product is
> already available in supermarkets, direct from farms, and via the
> internet. This is not like Dreck's sloppy bullshit about "animals don't
> have to die" in farming -- which, on a commercial scale, is pipedream.

What I meant by "what could be" is a large scale production of grass-fed
beef products (you're right that grass-fed is available, but on a much
smaller scale). Your whole argument for grass-fed counters people's
assertion that the grain-fed also contributes to collateral deaths of
animals. Until a LOT more people start buying grass-fed then it remains as
much of a pipedream as Dreck's "animals don't have to die" in farming.

>>>And monoculture farming can be environmentally harmful.
>>
>> There's no "can be" about it. Monoculture IS environmentally harmful. It
>> fragments habitat and greatly diminishes biodiversity.
>
> Yet this cycling tour will include foods which have been grown on
> monoculture farms -- grains in particular.
>
> Now for the important issue. Would you pay $100 a day to take a leisurely
> ride through some of Oregon's most scenic stretches for two weeks and
> during the same time suggest you have some kind "solidarity" with the poor
> simply because you've at least temporarily adopted "veganism"?

Maybe if the airfare is included...

C. James Strutz wrote:
>>The former applies to certain forms of commercial fishing. It does NOT
>>apply to other forms including recreational angling (large-mouth bass
>>aren't headed for extinction), line-caught fishing (as opposed to
>>netting), and fish farming.
>
> Well, by your own argument in another thread, only large scale production
> can accomodate viable commercial markets. We aren't talking about individual
> consumption.

There's a significant difference, though, between grains -- which was
the issue in the other thread -- and other foods like meat. It would
take considerably more labor to hand-pick five pounds of wheat than it
would to catch five pounds of fish by hand. As I noted, an established
market already exists in line-caught fish and in a variety of meats
grazed exclusively on grass. Many environmental groups approve of such
methods and encourage people to support them.

http://www.ecologyaction.ca/marine_i...c_vendors.shtm
http://www.seafoodchoices.com/newsle...eature.1.shtml
etc.

>>>Fishing also disrupts the ocean floor and the habitat it provides for
>>>thousands of other species of fish, reptiles, mammals, crustaceans, and
>>>coral.
>>
>>Recreational angling and line-catching do not disrupt the ocean floor.
>>Many specialty supermarkets carry fresh line-caught fish, and many more
>>carry canned line-caught fish.
>
> I've never heard of any supermarket, specialty or other, that carry any
> line-caught fish.

We have several here in Austin. Both locations of Whole Foods carry both
fresh and canned line-caught fish. Both locations of Central Market also
carry both. So does one of the local co-ops. I know of one "normal"
grocery store in town with a large seafood section that normally carries
some line-caught fish (not as extensive as above). I haven't been to any
local fish markets to see if they normally carry line-caught fish, but
I'm pretty sure they'd happily order some on request if they don't
already have it. Dittos for most of the other local grocers (especially
those with larger fresh seafood sections). So that's six stores that
regularly have fresh and five that always have canned line-caught fish.

It can also be ordered online (both fresh and canned). See:
http://davesalbacore.com/index.html

>>>>and so are certain forms of livestock production. Cattle don't have to be
>>>>fed grains.
>>>
>>>But the vast majority of cattle ARE fed grain.
>>
>>Urge consumers, then, to buy grass-fed instead.
>
> The average consumer won't buy grass-fed until the cost is comparable.

I would argue the cost is already comparable when considering fat
content and serving sizes. A sensible 3-4 oz serving of grass-fed beef
should cost less than a larger steak with more marbling (fat).

> Cattle are fed grain (and other stuff) so they can be brought to market
> larger and faster, making them less expensive to consumers.

Consumers also demand marbling, which doesn't typically happen on an
all-grass diet.

> Besides, I have
> no vested interest to urge consumers to support any kind of beef products.

You don't have a vested interest in their becoming vegetarians, either.

> Sounds more like your thing...

Since I don't have an agenda, I can recommend people eat certain kinds
of meat that are sustainable and better for them.

>>>Making a case on what could be is a weak argument.
>>
>>Grass-fed operations aren't "what could be," they exist. Such product is
>>already available in supermarkets, direct from farms, and via the
>>internet. This is not like Dreck's sloppy bullshit about "animals don't
>>have to die" in farming -- which, on a commercial scale, is pipedream.
>
> What I meant by "what could be" is a large scale production of grass-fed
> beef products (you're right that grass-fed is available, but on a much
> smaller scale).

It's carried by most of the same stores I named above regarding
line-caught fish. Some of them also carry other healthful and
sustainably-produced meats, including venison (exotic species are legal
for sale in Texas), bison, and ostrich.

> Your whole argument for grass-fed counters people's
> assertion that the grain-fed also contributes to collateral deaths of
> animals.

Exactly, and that should matter to you if your concern for animals is
genuine and extends beyond simply not appearing on your plate.

> Until a LOT more people start buying grass-fed then it remains as
> much of a pipedream as Dreck's "animals don't have to die" in farming.

Wrong, the former already exists in the real world; the latter never has
and never will.

>>>>And monoculture farming can be environmentally harmful.
>>>
>>>There's no "can be" about it. Monoculture IS environmentally harmful. It
>>>fragments habitat and greatly diminishes biodiversity.
>>
>>Yet this cycling tour will include foods which have been grown on
>>monoculture farms -- grains in particular.
>>
>>Now for the important issue. Would you pay $100 a day to take a leisurely
>>ride through some of Oregon's most scenic stretches for two weeks and
>>during the same time suggest you have some kind "solidarity" with the poor
>>simply because you've at least temporarily adopted "veganism"?
>
> Maybe if the airfare is included...

It isn't, nor is the cost of transporting or renting a bicycle. And I
can think of more appropriate ways to show solidarity with the poor than
to fly to Oregon for a two-week vacation with wine-sipping vegan hypocrites.